Top 5 Lakers of all time. [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Top 5 Lakers of all time.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 03:07 PM

PGDynasty24

09-13-2010, 03:13 PM

How can you put Shaq above Kobe. Shaq may have had a better peak than Kobe but Kobe has more longjevity with lakers.

Killakobe81

09-13-2010, 03:15 PM

trolling ... forget Kobe ... how is Shaq even over Kareem?

Ditty

09-13-2010, 03:16 PM

21 blessings-where's andrew bynum?

Muser

09-13-2010, 03:16 PM

I'd put Kobe over West.

JamStone

09-13-2010, 03:18 PM

Kurt Rambis
Nick Van Exel
AC Green
Sedale Threatt
Cedric Ceballos

lefty

09-13-2010, 03:19 PM

Magic
West
Kareem
Gasol
Worthy

:D

Killakobe81

09-13-2010, 03:20 PM

Kurt Rambis
Nick Van Exel
AC Green
Sedale Threatt
Cedric Ceballos

LOL
Mark Landsberger
Chuck Nevitt
Mike Smrek
Samaki Walker
Billy thompson

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 03:22 PM

trolling ... forget Kobe ... how is Shaq even over Kareem?

Because Shaq accomplished slightly more than Kareem as LA's premiere player. Kareem is better overall, but not as a Laker.

lefty

09-13-2010, 03:25 PM

Because Shaq accomplished slightly more than Kareem as LA's premiere player. Kareem is better overall, but not as a Laker.
Check Kareem numbers against another great center, Robert Parrish, in the 85 Finals

Kareem was 38 y/o

I don't think a 38 y/o Shaq qould have averaged those numbers vs another top C in the Finals

Killakobe81

09-13-2010, 03:30 PM

Because Shaq accomplished slightly more than Kareem as LA's premiere player. Kareem is better overall, but not as a Laker.

Kareem has more titles, same number of MVP's, a longer Laker career and was the better clutch player but he is behind Shaq?

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 03:33 PM

Check Kareem numbers against another great center, Robert Parrish, in the 85 Finals

Kareem was 38 y/o

I don't think a 38 y/o Shaq qould have averaged those numbers vs another top C in the Finals

Kareem was a beast in that series, no doubt.

But the 85 Lakers were Magic's team at that point. It's similar to Tony Parker winning the Finals MVP when the Spurs were clearly Duncan's team (granted, Kareem and Magic are a lot closer talent-wise than Duncan and Parker.)

But I have no problem with Kareem being above Shaq. I gave Shaq the edge because he was able to 3 peat, something the Lakers have never done previously.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 03:35 PM

Kareem has more titles, same number of MVP's, a longer Laker career and was the better clutch player but he is behind Shaq?

Key word is premiere.

Kareem passed the torch to Magic as the man after the 4-0 sweep by Philly. Shaq and Kareem had roughly the same amount of years as LA's "it" player.

lefty

09-13-2010, 03:40 PM

Kareem was a beast in that series, no doubt.

But the 85 Lakers were Magic's team at that point. It's similar to Tony Parker winning the Finals MVP when the Spurs were clearly Duncan's team (granted, Kareem and Magic are a lot closer talent-wise than Duncan and Parker.)

But I have no problem with Kareem being above Shaq. I gave Shaq the edge because he was able to 3 peat, something the Lakers have never done previously.
I agree

But the Lakers could have 3-peated in 89 if Magic didn't get injured in game 1.
But the Pistons were scary good too.

Koolaid_Man

09-13-2010, 03:51 PM

1. Magic Johnson. The driving force behind Showtime. 5 Championships, 3 Finals MVPs. What else can really be said?

2. Shaquille O'Neal. Now criminally underrated by Laker fans who still resent the way he left LA. But objective fans understand the impact he brought. During his tenure, he was the key component in the Los Angeles Lakers first ever 3 peat and put up some of the best playoff numbers in history.

3. Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Rewritten history makes us believe that the 80s Lakers were Magic's teams and his only, but this wasn't true for the first half of the decade. Make no mistakes, those early 80s Lakers squads still mobilized around number 33.

4. Jerry West. "Mr. Clutch," "The Logo," "Zeke From Cabin Creek." Sure, he only has 1 NBA championship, but we can't really fault him for this considering his 60s Lakers teams never even had a puncher's chance against the Celtic Juggernaut. Rings aside, his individual stats and accomplishments are some of the best in history, and if there's an alternate universe where Russell's Celtics never existed, Jerry West probably has 10 rings there.

5. Kobe Bryant. The league's most dynamic scorer. Fresh off a repeat with a chance at a couple more. Aging, but his strong fundamentals ensure he'll be a top 5-10 player for a few more years.

you have extremely shitty basketball takes...Sit back a let a playa re-run this shit:

Spurs First Team vs Lakers First Team

Here’s the bet -- If 50 years of gauranteed money and pussy were on the line which team would you pick. Let’s examine these wicked line-ups:

SG - GEORGE GERVIN VS. KOBE BRYANT
PG - TONY PARKER VS. MAGIC JOHNSON
SF - BRUCE BOWEN VS. ELGIN BAYLOR
PF - TIM DUNCAN VS. WILT CHAMBERLAIN
C - DAVID ROBINSON VS. KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR

While the Spurs first team would be great in an alternate universe no way I’m missing out on all that cash and ass…The Lakers win every matchup on this first team decisively in my opinion. The TWIN TOWERS line-up on each side of the ball would be a delight to watch.

Spurs Second Team: vs Lakers Second Team ( This Spur 2nd unit could cause the Laker all time 2nd unit some problems)
SG - MANU GINOBILI VS. GAIL GOODRICH
PG - ALVIN ROBERTSON VS. JERRY WEST
SF - MIKE MITCHELL VS. JAMES WORTHY
PF - LARRY KENON VS. PAU GASOL
C - BILLY PAULTZ VS. SHAQUILLE ONEAL

Jerry West and Pau Gasol on the same court is almost like a wet dream, and Shaq would just shit all over the Spur second unit. These 1st and 2nd Laker units would work well against any team combination's imaginable and any extra Laker players outside of this could be anyone in the world because they would probably never see the court anyway. These Lakers units are sick with it’s Power, Speed and Versatility.

Coaches: Pat Riley and Phil Jackson vs Gregg Popovich and Bob Hill

Huge Advantage: Lakers

hater

09-13-2010, 04:09 PM

Huge Advantage: Lakers

that may be true in la la land, fakerfan. But thankfully in the real world, benches and depth play a bigger role and when you include those, the Lakers "huge advantage" goes byebye

Koolaid_Man

09-13-2010, 04:16 PM

that may be true in la la land, fakerfan. But thankfully in the real world, benches and depth play a bigger role and when you include those, the Lakers "huge advantage" goes byebye

the 2nd unit was the bench...how could SA really compete with a Bench featuring...Shaq, Gasol, and West....

Steve Kerr

09-13-2010, 06:08 PM

Kurt Rambis
Nick Van Exel
AC Green
Sedale Threatt
Cedric Ceballos
Pig Miller
Elden Campbell
D-Strong the destroyer
Smush Parker
Mitch Kupchak

The Gemini Method

09-13-2010, 06:18 PM

All-00's
Mike Penberthy
Sun Yue
Coby Karl
Kwame Brown
Javaris Crittenton

Fabbs

09-13-2010, 06:18 PM

1. Dick Bavetta
2. Lamell McMorris
3. Bob Delaney
4. Ted Bernhardt
5. Darrell Garettson

Steve Kerr

09-13-2010, 06:19 PM

1990's Lakeshow > 2000's Lakeshow imo tbh

TheMACHINE

09-13-2010, 07:27 PM

Daddy_Of_All_Trolls

09-13-2010, 07:39 PM

I usually don't rank players but to me, first place is between Jerry West and Magic Johnson. Kareem to me is right behind. I also believe Elgin Baylor deserves consideration, he stuck with his team his whole career and at one time was one of the top 5 players in NBA history. Wilt only played 5 years for the Lakers, but deserves consideration. I wouldn't put Mikan on a top 5 list. Shaq and Kobe might get nosed out if I really thought about it long enough.

So, possible order:

West
Magic
Kareem
Baylor
Chamberlain

namlook

09-13-2010, 07:51 PM

1. Magic
2. Kobe
3. Kareem
4. Shaq
5. West

This is as a Lakers player.

Kareem is above Kobe if you look at the entire career and probably above Magic too.

At his peak 99-00 Shaq was arguably more dominant than Kareem, but Kareem has contributed more to the Lakers and is above Shaq any way you want to look at it: as a Laker and for the entire career. Six MVPs and six championships and all time leading scorer? It's not a close call.

If Kobe wins one more championship he moves into the #1 spot.

elemento

09-13-2010, 08:01 PM

Kobe above KAJ?

No fucking way !

Magic
KAJ
Shaq
Kobe
West

namlook

09-13-2010, 08:04 PM

Kobe above KAJ?

No fucking way !

Magic
KAJ
Shaq
Kobe
West

It arguable. I'm not going to complain if someone wants to put Kareem above Kobe.

But Shaq above Kobe? No fucking way! Kobe has definitely had the better career as a Lakers player.

Daddy_Of_All_Trolls

09-13-2010, 08:06 PM

For what it's worth, Kobe's career in LA isn't over, but Shaq's is. No matter how they are ranked now, Kobe may move up and Shaq may move down when it's all said and done.

Make it a top 10, then you can add Mikan and Worthy, then argue about who else joins up. Gail Goodrich? Derek Fisher? Michael Cooper?

Koolaid_Man

09-13-2010, 08:22 PM

Kobe above KAJ?

No fucking way !

Magic
KAJ
Shaq
Kobe
West

Probably the realest article you will ever read on the subject..here's a sampling:

"Later that night, Magic told me Kobe is now his equal, although not yet his superior.

"The great thing about the Lakers is that we judge by championships,'' said Magic, who -- along with Kareem, Kobe and crucial role player Derek Fisher (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=246) -- has won a handful of rings with the Lakers. "So when Kobe gets that next one, then he'll be The Man; he'll be the greatest Laker. And I'll have no problem giving him that.''

In my heart, I agree with Magic, the starting point guard on my all-time first five. But when I judge Magic by the same standard that everyone in the post-MJ period is judged by, I have to, albeit grudgingly, put Kobe atop the Lakers pantheon."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=broussard_chris&page=kobe-100618

TD 21

09-13-2010, 09:30 PM

you have extremely shitty basketball takes...Sit back a let a playa re-run this shit:

Spurs First Team vs Lakers First Team

Here’s the bet -- If 50 years of gauranteed money and pussy were on the line which team would you pick. Let’s examine these wicked line-ups:

SG - GEORGE GERVIN VS. KOBE BRYANT
PG - TONY PARKER VS. MAGIC JOHNSON
SF - BRUCE BOWEN VS. ELGIN BAYLOR
PF - TIM DUNCAN VS. WILT CHAMBERLAIN
C - DAVID ROBINSON VS. KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR

While the Spurs first team would be great in an alternate universe no way I’m missing out on all that cash and ass…The Lakers win every matchup on this first team decisively in my opinion. The TWIN TOWERS line-up on each side of the ball would be a delight to watch.

Spurs Second Team: vs Lakers Second Team ( This Spur 2nd unit could cause the Laker all time 2nd unit some problems)
SG - MANU GINOBILI VS. GAIL GOODRICH
PG - ALVIN ROBERTSON VS. JERRY WEST
SF - MIKE MITCHELL VS. JAMES WORTHY
PF - LARRY KENON VS. PAU GASOL
C - BILLY PAULTZ VS. SHAQUILLE ONEAL

Jerry West and Pau Gasol on the same court is almost like a wet dream, and Shaq would just shit all over the Spur second unit. These 1st and 2nd Laker units would work well against any team combination's imaginable and any extra Laker players outside of this could be anyone in the world because they would probably never see the court anyway. These Lakers units are sick with it’s Power, Speed and Versatility.

Coaches: Pat Riley and Phil Jackson vs Gregg Popovich and Bob Hill

Huge Advantage: Lakers

You forgot one thing: Chamberlain is not only not a PF, he can't even be reasonably placed there, like Russell. He, like Abdul-Jabbar, O'Neal, etc. is strictly a C, plain and simple. So by moving him to PF just to make the Lakers all-time lineup look better, you come off as nothing more than a homer with little to no credibility.

If you were being honest, you'd have put Gasol on the first team, which would change the entire dynamic of the hypothetical match-up, because if we're to consider each player at their best, prime Duncan would annihilate Gasol.

I love how Lakers fans continue to arrogantly pretend as if they've had all these great players based solely on merit, as if there weren't other factors at work (namely where they're located) that played a major part in them having had the depth of great players they've had.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 09:43 PM

Kobe has played his entire career as a Laker. Leads the Lakers in career points and has 5 titles. Kareem never led the Lakers, those teams were led by Magic, just as Kobe led the Shaq teams.

Lol. Quit rewriting history so it falls in line with your guard infatuation. You were alive to witness it, and everyone considered those early 80s Lakers teams Kareem's. You know this.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 09:51 PM

You won't find one Laker fan on this planet that would call those 80's Lakers Kareem's team.

Key word here is early.

From 80-84, those teams were unmistakably Kareem's. The torch was officially passed when Magic nailed that hook shot to bury Boston. Granted, Kareem was the Finals MVP, but Magic had a better overall playoffs and created what is perhaps the defining moment of the Lakers franchise.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 10:00 PM

In before Lakaluva cites the breakout game against Philly in the 80 Finals when Kareem went down with an injury.

4>0rings

09-13-2010, 10:00 PM

1) http://www.blogcdn.com/www.streetlevel.com/media/2010/07/stern.jpg

2) http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/246/209/Dick_Bavetta_display_image.jpg?1275573772

3) http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2008/writers/jack_mccallum/01/04/delaney.book/p1.delaney.jpg

4) http://www.82games.com/bernhardt2.jpg

5) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_BquY6zd9Wxo/SgK2UGh7zEI/AAAAAAAAHNE/ZK8BqG2wmp4/s320/Joey+Crawford.jpg

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 10:08 PM

"Pat Riley, forget Pat Riley... Magic coached us."

- Michael Cooper

Dude, you don't have entire era (Showtime) named after you and not be the leader of the team you played on.

You know Showtime didn't officially began until Worthy arrived, which gave the Lakers a PF who could run the floor like no other. Check Magic's assist numbers before and after Worthy. He never even averaged 10 assists per game until Worthy got there. Why? Because they didn't break as much and played more of a half-court oriented game that was built around Kareem.

I know you hate big men and prefer the flash and marketing appeal of guards, but while this history can be rewritten, it can't be disproven. Even if you were to ask Magic himself, he would agree.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 10:16 PM

"I don't even know if Kareem could have done things Magic did tonight," said the 76ers' Julius Erving. "The kid's a player."

Why do you insist on using anecdotal quotes as some kind of evidence? Players often get caught up in the moment and gush with praise when it's really not justified. Besides, Erving vs. Kareem was arguably the second biggest player rivalry of all-time behind Bird vs. Magic, so there's a strong possibility that Dr. J made those comments as a subtle dig at Kareem.

Also worth mentioning is that Kareem's combined playoff stats were a notch better than Magic's that year.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 10:30 PM

Save this shit for someone that doesn't no better. Magic's assists were obviously hampered by Norm Nixon sharing PG duties. Also, Showtime started the moment Magic arrived in LA. Also, Magic averaged 10 assist the year before Worthy arrived. Don't even reply, just apologize for wasting my time.

Lol. No he didn't. Lern2BasketballReference. Magic averaged 9.5 the year before Worthy got there. In Worthy's rookie season, Magic finally had his first 10 assist per game season.

And you don't think Magic's assists were hampered by Kareem dominating the ball more in those years than in the year's to come?

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 10:37 PM

Laker History

1979-82: "Showtime" Arrives

Los Angeles picked Earvin "Magic" Johnson, an electrifying 6-9 point guard who had led Michigan State to the 1979 NCAA Championship. "Showtime" had arrived, and a dynasty was established almost overnight.

http://www.nba.com/lakers/history/lakers_history_new.html

Over the years, Magic has become inextricably linked with Showtime, so of course it makes a snazzy title for the introduction to his article.

But an article written in hindsight doesn't do much in strengthening your case. If Magic was truly the leader of the Lakers in those early years, how in the hell did the Lakers still go 54-28 in 80-81 when Magic missed half the season? They went 60-22 the year prior. I'd be willing to bet the 80-81 Lakers don't break 45 wins if Kareem were to miss that many games.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 10:39 PM

9.5 is rounded up, jackass. And no I don't think Kareem hampered Magics assist, he aided them. Nixon loved to get the ball and go coast to coast, which is why Magic's assist went up the moment he left, not because of the arrival of Worthy.

Rounding? :lmao

Who are you, Allanon?

Sorry, but they don't "round up" when logging NBA statistics. Not the way it works.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 10:41 PM

Boom, headshot:

By the 1984–85 season, the Lakers' so-called "Showtime"[1] era was in full swing. Showtime was a fast-paced style of basketball, described as a mix of "no-look passes off the fastbreak, pin-point alley-oops from halfcourt, spinning feeds and overhand bullets under the basket through triple teams."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Los_Angeles_Lakers

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 10:46 PM

Luva, I grew up here during that time, and the media didn't start throwing around the "Showtime" label until the mid-80s. They weren't as flashy and as fast breaking in the earlier years. They still had some flash, because of Magic, but it was nothing compared to later years. I'll say it again: You know this.

nkdlunch

09-13-2010, 10:52 PM

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 11:05 PM

Look, you tried to accuse me of re-writing history so I gave it to you from the Lakers site. The Lakers were a top 5 team prior to Magic coming, he just cemented the dynasty. In 78 the Lakers only won 45 games, in 79 only 47 games. In 1980 when Magic arrived they won 60 games and the title for the first time while Kareem was a Laker. The year after Kareem retires, Magic leads the Lakers to the finals again... with Divac as center.

In 78, Kareem missed 20 games, and the next year, Adrian Dantley, arguably the Lakers second best player, missed 22 games.

And what does Magic leading the Lakers to the Finals with Divac as a center really prove? We know Magic is a top 5 player off all time, so it stands to reason he'd be able to do such. On the other side of the coin, Kareem WON an NBA title with a past his prime Oscar Robertson as the 2nd option. So they're equal in that regard of being able to lead without each other.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 11:09 PM

Answer this question. Why was Paul Westhead fired?

Read the book Winnin' Times. It documents the situation with a lot more depth than the simple story of "Magic ran Westhead out" we've all come to believe as fact.

Fact is, Buss wanted Westhead gone. The Lakers team as whole didn't like Westhead, but Magic was the only one to publicly speak out about it.

Another myth eviscerated by the blade of truth.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 11:16 PM

You didn't answer the question.

Jerry Buss.

Steve Kerr

09-13-2010, 11:22 PM

Kobe above KAJ?

No fucking way !

Magic
KAJ
Shaq
Kobe
West
As a Laker, Kobe > KAJ

Careerwise regardless of what they did on LA, KAJ > anyone not named Michael Jordan

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 11:22 PM

:nope

I guess. Kareem did win an NBA title without Magic, while Magic couldn't win one without Kareem. It's why Kareem tops Magic on most all-time lists.

Anyhow, we'll go in circles all day with this. I'm fully aware of the bias you have toward big men, mainly due to the fact that you used to play guard. Naturally, you identify with them. Hell, I don't think I've ever seen you talk nice about a big man on here. So how can I expect you to give a big man credit when a flashy guard of similar skill level is on the same team?

I mean, Gasol could average 40 and 20 next year and you'd still claim Kobe's the better player.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 11:27 PM

"I've always led. I don't no nothing but how to be a leader. I don't know how to follow."

- Magic

Everyone thinks they're a leader and not a follower. You ask Koriwhat with his male secretary position if he's a leader or a follower, and he'll claim the former.
Or ask Koolaid_Man with the way he has his nose up your ass and tries to copy everything you do if he's a leader or a follower, and he'll claim the former.

Magic's quote doesn't prove anything.

Venti Quattro

09-13-2010, 11:30 PM

nice list but if I had to rank it

1 Magic
2 Kareem
3 Kobe
4 Logo
5 Shaq

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 11:53 PM

Dude, I watch basketball because of Kareem. Kareem was the most unstoppable force the league has ever seen, but Magic is the greatest leader in all of sports... and it's not even close.

I give credit when it's due, but you not going to pull Gasol out of obscurity and force me to give him credit for being a great big now that he plays along side Kobe. I will agree with you that the Showtime era kicked into high gear when we added Worthy and Scott, but the era started the day Magic arrived in LA.

Not necessarily referring to Gasol, but you remain steadfast in your conviction that the 3 peat Lakers were Kobe's team when all the evidence, both empirical and anecdotal, says otherwise. Maybe you don't like the way Shaq left LA, but that doesn't disprove the fact that Shaq was clearly the best player on the Lakers in those years.

I remember all you Laker fans on the message boards back then, "How you gonna stop Shaq?" "Shaq's the greatest big man ever." "Wait until Shaq comes back, motivated." You guys were talking up Shaq like he was the most transcendent talent to ever step foot on the hardwood. Yeah, you guys were talking up Kobe, as well, but it was mostly in threads comparing him to Tracy McGrady and Vince Carter.

midnightpulp

09-13-2010, 11:59 PM

:lol it's downright shameful the way laker fan throws shaq under the bus. he's a greater laker than kobe, at least during his more brief stay

According to Kobe-fan, the game only lasts 6 min (the last half of the 4th), and since Kobe was the first option during that time due to his ability to make free throws while still being a scoring threat, he was the true leader of the Lakers.

midnightpulp

09-14-2010, 12:04 AM

back in the day laker fan billed shaq as an unstoppable beast. now he's just some overrated piece of shit :rollin classic

Oh yeah. My stomping grounds in those days were the Scout/Fanhome boards, and pretty much every thread was Laker fan gloating about other teams not being able to stop Shaq. Kobe discussion was relegated to second tier threads with people arguing who's better between him and McGrady.

But yeah, he was the leader of the Lakers back then. Look what happened when Shaq let him lead in '04 against the Pistons. One of the worst Finals performances of all-time.

Pau Gasoft

09-14-2010, 12:20 AM

fuck all of yall

luva come back to bed and tell me some stories of what you and kobe used to do together

:elephant:elephant:elephant

picc84

09-14-2010, 12:31 AM

I love how Lakers fans continue to arrogantly pretend as if they've had all these great players based solely on merit, as if there weren't other factors at work (namely where they're located) that played a major part in them having had the depth of great players they've had.

As if we care. :lol

"merit" :rollin

TinTin

09-14-2010, 12:36 AM

According to Kobe-fan, the game only lasts 6 min (the last half of the 4th), and since Kobe was the first option during that time due to his ability to make free throws while still being a scoring threat, he was the true leader of the Lakers.

:lmao

midnightpulp

09-14-2010, 01:01 AM

There is some truth to this. You see it on every single team in all of sports. You name me one team that depends on their clutch player during the end of games, yet don't consider that player their most valuable player? You can't do it, yet you easily apply this non-sense when trying to reduce Kobe's role on the Lakers with Shaq.

Sure I can. Baseball for one. Just because Mariano Rivera can close out a game like no other doesn't mean he's the best pitcher or player on the Yankees.

Same logic applies to basketball. A player dominating for 3 and 1/2 quarters but then having to defer for the final moments of the game because he's a liability at the free-throw line, doesn't invalidate what he did for the rest of the game. Just because there's more drama associated with the closing minutes of a game, doesn't mean they're anymore important than the opening minutes of a game.

Time is time. it's importance doesn't change no matter what the quarter, and games are won and lost in the 1st quarter just as much as they are in the 4th. To me, a player who goes 32 and 16 on 60% for 3 and 1/2 quarters is the far more valuable player than the player who goes 7-20, but closes out the game with a couple of shots and a few made FTs. There'd be no game to close if not for the contribution of the player who went 32 and 16.

midnightpulp

09-14-2010, 01:13 AM

Only you would compare a player that plays two innings to a guy that plays the majority of the game. If you think that Kobe only showed up during the last six minutes of the game then we should end this discussion.

But Shaq was the go-to-guy for the majority of the game, was he not? The stats seem to suggest this as Kobe never really got anywhere near Shaq's total production when they played together. Mamba was doing his 25 points on 40% thing, while Shaq was going off for near 30 on 60% shooting.

And Manu has been the Spurs closer since '05, but only a fool would say he's the Spurs leader (something I think you've actually said :lol)

ezau

09-14-2010, 02:01 AM

Magic
Kareem
Shaq
Gasol
Bynum

Kobe

Killakobe81

09-14-2010, 11:14 AM

shaq is a GREAT player ...he should of been greatest ever but as it stands still great. But come on as a Laker, his career was spectacular but brief. so you can make a case for West and Baylor over him as well...because "greatest" was not defined on here. West not only was a great player but a great GM that had an impact on at least 5 titles as a GM (or president of the Grizz LOL) ...so all things considered you can argue West over them all.

Shaq was a great Laker but not greater than kobe. Many on here like Shaq or respect him cuz he punked your teams in his prime ...but you guys overrate his place in Laker lore.

TheManFromAcme

09-14-2010, 11:31 AM

JamStone

09-14-2010, 12:37 PM

But Shaq was the go-to-guy for the majority of the game, was he not? The stats seem to suggest this as Kobe never really got anywhere near Shaq's total production when they played together. Mamba was doing his 25 points on 40% thing, while Shaq was going off for near 30 on 60% shooting.

This is an often misconception and misrepresentation of what really happen. What you say is true for the 1999-2000 Lakers team. By 2000-01, Kobe was as much the go-to guy on the Lakers as Shaq was. The difference was insignificant.

2000-01 Lakers

Shaq: 39.5 mpg, 19.2 FGA, 13.1 FTA, 28.7 ppg, 31.6 USG%
Kobe: 40.9 mpg, 22.2 FGA, 8.2 FTA, 28.5 ppg, 31.8 USG%

2000-01 Lakers playoffs

Shaq: 42.3 mpg, 21.5 FGA, 12.5 FTA, 30.4 ppg, 32.0 USG%
Kobe: 43.4 mpg, 22.4 FGA, 9.4 FTA, 29.4 ppg, 30.3 USG%

2001-02 Lakers

Shaq: 36.1 mpg, 18.3 FGA, 10.7 FTA, 27.2 ppg, 31.8 USG%
Kobe: 38.3 mpg, 20.0 FGA, 7.4 FTA, 25.2 ppg, 30.4 USG%

2001-02 Lakers playoffs

Shaq: 40.8 mpg, 20.2 FGA, 10.9 FTA, 28.5 ppg, 31.4 USG%
Kobe: 43.8 mpg, 22.7 FGA, 7.6 FTA, 26.6 ppg, 29.8 USG%

The stats actually do suggest Kobe got near Shaq's total production those last two Shaq-Kobe titles. Shaq was more dominant. More efficient in scoring. But Kobe's mark on those last two titles of their first threepeat absolutely show that Kobe's contributions were about as much as Shaq's. The scoring differences were marginal after 1999-2000. Yes, Shaq scored on a higher FG%. But even if you factor in free throws, Kobe was taking about as many shots as Shaq, sometimes more. It was really a case of a 1A and 1B, not one go-to guy and a sidekick. Shaq and Kobe were both go-to guys for most of the game and then Kobe closed it out.

People want to diminish what Kobe did on those early championship teams. I get it. People either hate Kobe or hate Kobe/Laker fans. But Kobe is often shitted on as a second fiddle when he was more of a go-to guy especially for the 2001 and 2002 championship teams. The stats suggest that he and Shaq put out about the same production and Kobe closed out the games.

And yeah, the Mariano Rivera comparison is extremely weak. Kobe didn't sit out the first 42 minutes of games and only played and contributed in the final 6 minutes.

baseline bum

09-14-2010, 12:40 PM

This one's easy

1. Magic
2. Kareem
3. Kobe
4. West
5. Shaq

TheMACHINE

09-14-2010, 02:07 PM

1. Magic
2. Kobe
3. West
4. Kareem
5. Shaq

Ashy Larry

09-14-2010, 02:23 PM

Ashy Larry

09-14-2010, 02:26 PM

This one's easy

1. Magic
2. Kareem
3. Kobe
4. West
5. Shaq

This more than likely would be the five who would go on this list. Anyone putting Wilt on the top 5 Lakers list obviously doesn't know Laker basketball. The only debatable person would probably be Shaquille. Could he be replaced with Baylor or Worthy? If anyone, probably J dub but I think Shaquille has done enough to stay on. He gave the Lakers eight great years.

Killakobe81

09-14-2010, 02:34 PM

This is an often misconception and misrepresentation of what really happen. What you say is true for the 1999-2000 Lakers team. By 2000-01, Kobe was as much the go-to guy on the Lakers as Shaq was. The difference was insignificant.

2000-01 Lakers

Shaq: 39.5 mpg, 19.2 FGA, 13.1 FTA, 28.7 ppg, 31.6 USG%
Kobe: 40.9 mpg, 22.2 FGA, 8.2 FTA, 28.5 ppg, 31.8 USG%

2000-01 Lakers playoffs

Shaq: 42.3 mpg, 21.5 FGA, 12.5 FTA, 30.4 ppg, 32.0 USG%
Kobe: 43.4 mpg, 22.4 FGA, 9.4 FTA, 29.4 ppg, 30.3 USG%

2001-02 Lakers

Shaq: 36.1 mpg, 18.3 FGA, 10.7 FTA, 27.2 ppg, 31.8 USG%
Kobe: 38.3 mpg, 20.0 FGA, 7.4 FTA, 25.2 ppg, 30.4 USG%

2001-02 Lakers playoffs

Shaq: 40.8 mpg, 21.5 FGA, 12.5 FTA, 30.4 ppg, 32.0 USG%
Kobe: 43.8 mpg, 22.7 FGA, 9.4 FTA, 29.4 ppg, 30.3 USG%

The stats actually do suggest Kobe got near Shaq's total production those last two Shaq-Kobe titles. Shaq was more dominant. More efficient in scoring. But Kobe's mark on those last two titles of their first threepeat absolutely show that Kobe's contributions were about as much as Shaq's. The scoring differences were marginal after 1999-2000. Yes, Shaq scored on a higher FG%. But even if you factor in free throws, Kobe was taking about as many shots as Shaq, sometimes more. It was really a case of a 1A and 1B, not one go-to guy and a sidekick. Shaq and Kobe were both go-to guys for most of the game and then Kobe closed it out.

People want to diminish what Kobe did on those early championship teams. I get it. People either hate Kobe or hate Kobe/Laker fans. But Kobe is often shitted on as a second fiddle when he was more of a go-to guy especially for the 2001 and 2002 championship teams. The stats suggest that he and Shaq put out about the same production and Kobe closed out the games.

And yeah, the Mariano Rivera comparison is extremely weak. Kobe didn't sit out the first 42 minutes of games and only played and contributed in the final 6 minutes.

Good post. I'm done with this argument in this forum (or at least do my best not to get sucked in on kobe vs. shaq) As well as you backed up your argument above, it wont change the mind of the haters. Kobe talk (even on some Laker forums) is full of fanbois and haters going back and forth...

Shaq and Kobe were both critical to the 3 peat. In 2000 It was no question it was Shaq's team. In fact, I think ALL of the FINALS teams of the Kobe/Shaq era were shaq's team more than Kobe's, though Kobe became more valuable and took more responsibilty each year. Those teams were built on shaq's inside presence, and Kobe slashed and created off that and the role players as well. But to imply he only took over with 6 mins left ... is silly and inaccurate. Kobe pretty much filled whatever role those teams needed he was, in many ways, a sort of a new millenium Scottie Pippen for those teams though a a better scorer. In fact, many of the media made that comparison early on. The big difference is Kobe had clutch time responsibilty, that Pippen never really had because of MJ.

That does not take any credit away from Kobe, in fact Kobe (who many consider selfish) had to sacrifice his game for those teams to win. Now, I have no problem calling out Kobe for his role in the demise of those teams. He gets credit for playing a major role on the wins and blame for not working it out with Shaq. Shaq obviously was to blame as well. And for me, that is why Kobe is not a greater Laker than Magic, but neither is Shaq. Magic was a greater leader and team-mate than either of those two combined. Yes, he wanted to lead the Lakers and increase his role, but he waited for Riley to give it to him, rather than "force it". Magic probably felt kareem was slowing the offense down, but he held his tongue until Riley decided to switch the focus of the offense to Magic. Kobe should of taken note. Shaq should of learned from Kareem (or the Admiral) on how to embrace a young superstar and share the spotlight. Because of this failing, neither is the greatest Laker in my humble opinion, but I would give Kobe the edge over Shaq because he was major contributor to two seperate title runs.That is not a knock on shaq. I have different reason for not being a Shaq fan, (wont detail here) but that does not take away the titles he led us to.

Kobe or Shaq hate is silly, especially from Laker fans. Both are great players, both Laker legends. They needed each other to win those titles. It's obvious Shaq did not win titles until Kobe developed, and Kobe struggled right after Shaq left.

Killakobe81

09-14-2010, 02:35 PM

What I've been saying all along. I'm not a Bean worshiper but after that 2000 season, where Shaquille was clearly the Alpha Dog, Bean clearly held his own, if not did more. I always bring up that 2001 Spurs series: the real NBA Finals. Sure Shaquille got the Finals MVP Award against Filly, but in that Spurs/Lakers matchup with the Spurs having homecourt, the best player on the Floor, including the superstars (Duncan, Robinson, O'Neal, Bryant), Bean was the best one of the court.

Yep, Kobe closed out Sac and brought us home vs. the spurs that year ...

midnightpulp

09-14-2010, 05:12 PM

midnightpulp

09-14-2010, 05:17 PM

This more than likely would be the five who would go on this list. Anyone putting Wilt on the top 5 Lakers list obviously doesn't know Laker basketball. The only debatable person would probably be Shaquille. Could he be replaced with Baylor or Worthy? If anyone, probably J dub but I think Shaquille has done enough to stay on. He gave the Lakers eight great years.

Do you know why? Shaq had to deal with Robinson and Duncan down in the post on both the offensive and defensive ends while Kobe got to feast on Terry Porter, Danny Ferry, and Sean Elliott. Shaq would often force Duncan and Robinson to collapse, dish to Kobe, who would then wreak havoc on the weak-side.

Once the Spurs got Bowen, it brought Kobe down to earth some against the Spurs. He no longer could beat his primary defender at will and slash into the open lanes (which Shaq created) with the same amount of ease as before.

midnightpulp

09-14-2010, 05:30 PM

And let's not forget Shaq's ability to foul out the opposing team's best interior defender, which happened quite frequently.

I don't know why so people insist on rewriting the history of the 3 peat? Shaq was the main man. The offensive load wasn't split between him and Kobe to create this 1A, 1B nonsense. The offensive system was built around Shaq and his ability to draw doubles and triples, which opened lanes and created open shots for the 3 point shooters.

Quit Hatin'

09-14-2010, 05:54 PM

How about this, yall niggas stick to deciding your own team's top 5.

Quit Hatin'

JamStone

09-14-2010, 08:47 PM

Good post, but here's a case of where the stats slightly misrepresent what actually happened.

Shaq was most definitely the first option throughout the majority of the game. Much of the reason for the relatively close production (it's not really that close when you examine the stats as a whole. Shaq's PER crushes Kobe's) and shot attempts between each player is because Shaq was often double and triple teamed with Kobe playing off him. If some team were crazy enough to try and check Shaq with single coverage for the entire game, his shot attempts would dwarf Kobe's.

Very poor argument. First of all, PER measures more than just offensive production. So just going straight to PER doesn't give a fair or complete evaluation of (exclusively) offensive production or how one player is more of a "go-to" offensive player than another on the same team.

Second, even as it pertains to offensive stats, it isn't so much a measure of merely production, but efficiency. Big men are at an advantage because good big men take higher percentage shots and will generally have much higher FG% than a perimeter player.

Overall, PER favors big men because PER takes into consideration more than just points and FG%. It measures rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, turnovers as well. A big man with rebounds and blocks, compared to a wing player particularly who is not a point guard or not a high assist player, is again at an advantage with respect to PER.

I'll give you a couple examples.

Take the 2003-04 and 2004-05 Detroit Pistons who went to back-to-back NBA Finals. The offense ran through Rip Hamilton primarily and then Chauncey Billups. Ben Wallace didn't score much, didn't rack up assists. Check out their respective PER ratings those two seasons (regular season and playoffs).

2003-04 PER ratings (regular season and playoffs)
Billups: 18.6 and 18.8
Hamilton: 16.8 and 19.6
Wallace: 17.3 and 18.6

2004-05 PER ratings (regular season and playoffs)
Billups: 19.0 and 20.0
Hamilton: 16.0 and 16.2
Wallace: 17.4 and 13.7

Now based on those PER stats, would you guess the offensive go-to player was Rip Hamilton? And would you guess that Ben Wallace was the fifth option on offense? PER does not accurately represent what player on a given team is the main go-to player.

Another example? The 2007-08 Boston Celtics. Another well-balanced team on offense, but Paul Pierce was the go-to guy. KG brought a lot of energy, especially defensively, but it was Paul Pierce on offense.

2007-08 Boston Celtics PER ratings (regular season and playoffs)
Pierce: 19.6 and 17.4
Garnett: 25.3 and 23.0

KG's PER stats are significantly better than Pierce's but Pierce was the go-to guy on offense.

Again, big men are at an advantage when it comes to PER because they generally have higher efficiency in scoring and they have one category in rebounds that they can generally dominate with double digit stats and pushes that PER higher, especially compared to perimeter players who are not the primary ball handlers who rack up double digit assists. When you have both a dominant big man and dominant perimeter scorer on the same team, in general, that big man will have a higher PER even if he's not the go-to guy on offense. Look at Dwight Howard's PER compared to his teammates and he isn't even any good as a go-to low post scorer.

Very poor argument.

You might think this is a slight against Kobe, but it's more of exaltation of Shaq's dominance. To have a player like that and not feed him in the post for virtually every offensive play would be lunacy. In those days, I never heard the other opposing coaches say that their defensive game plan was entirely built around stopping Kobe. Their main point of concern was Shaq, Shaq, Shaq.

But, yeah Kobe was 1B, which doesn't make sense in itself. He's either the first option or the second, and in the case of the 3 peat Lakers, he was the second option.

You're trying to make it a slight against Kobe. You even try to argue against statistical facts that prove you are wrong as it pertains to the 2000-01 and 2001-02 Lakers. Shaq was dominant. That's not something at issue here. No one is saying Shaq wasn't more dominant. We're talking specifically about who was the "go-to guy" on offense. Look at the FGA and FTA and scoring and usage percentage, and it's pretty much a wash between Shaq and Kobe those last two seasons of the threepeat, in both the regular season and the playoffs. Those are far more accurate indicators than the PER stat. The PER stat is complete horseshit if you're trying to prove who is the "go-to guy." Good stat for overall production and offensive efficiency? Sure. To prove who was the go-to guy? Not at all.

And it's funny how you talk about how other teams were concerned about Shaq more than Kobe when you look back at the two biggest challengers of the Lakers in the early 2000s, the San Antonio Spurs and the Sacramento Kings. After the 2000 playoffs, the Sacramento Kings acquired Doug Christie specifically to be a "Kobe stopper" after Kobe torched them in the playoffs. The San Antonio Spurs did the same exact thing after the 2001 playoffs by picking up Bruce Bowen. But teams were only concerned about Shaq? The two best teams in the early 2000s other than the Lakers and they made roster moves specifically because of Kobe.

By the 2000-01 season, Kobe had emerged as just as much of the go-to guy for the Lakers as Shaq was. Shaq was still a go-to guy, don't get me wrong. But it's about as equal as you can get.

In those days, I never heard the other opposing coaches say that their defensive game plan was entirely built around stopping Kobe. Their main point of concern was Shaq, Shaq, Shaq.

That was Detroit's gameplan in the 2004 NBA Finals. Let Shaq get his, play him straight up, and focus on Kobe, shade him with 2-3 help defenders, make him take extremely difficult shots. It worked.

midnightpulp

09-14-2010, 09:22 PM

Very poor argument. First of all, PER measures more than just offensive production. So just going straight to PER doesn't give a fair or complete evaluation of (exclusively) offensive production or how one player is more of a "go-to" offensive player than another on the same team.

Second, even as it pertains to offensive stats, it isn't so much a measure of merely production, but efficiency. Big men are at an advantage because good big men take higher percentage shots and will generally have much higher FG% than a perimeter player.

Overall, PER favors big men because PER takes into consideration more than just points and FG%. It measures rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, turnovers as well. A big man with rebounds and blocks, compared to a wing player particularly who is not a point guard or not a high assist player, is again at an advantage with respect to PER.

I'll give you a couple examples.

Take the 2003-04 and 2004-05 Detroit Pistons who went to back-to-back NBA Finals. The offense ran through Rip Hamilton primarily and then Chauncey Billups. Ben Wallace didn't score much, didn't rack up assists. Check out their respective PER ratings those two seasons (regular season and playoffs).

2003-04 PER ratings (regular season and playoffs)
Billups: 18.6 and 18.8
Hamilton: 16.8 and 19.6
Wallace: 17.3 and 18.6

2004-05 PER ratings (regular season and playoffs)
Billups: 19.0 and 20.0
Hamilton: 16.0 and 16.2
Wallace: 17.4 and 13.7

Now based on those PER stats, would you guess the offensive go-to player was Rip Hamilton? And would you guess that Ben Wallace was the fifth option on offense? PER does not accurately represent what player on a given team is the main go-to player.

Another example? The 2007-08 Boston Celtics. Another well-balanced team on offense, but Paul Pierce was the go-to guy. KG brought a lot of energy, especially defensively, but it was Paul Pierce on offense.

2007-08 Boston Celtics PER ratings (regular season and playoffs)
Pierce: 19.6 and 17.4
Garnett: 25.3 and 23.0

KG's PER stats are significantly better than Pierce's but Pierce was the go-to guy on offense.

Again, big men are at an advantage when it comes to PER because they generally have higher efficiency in scoring and they have one category in rebounds that they can generally dominate with double digit stats and pushes that PER higher, especially compared to perimeter players who are not the primary ball handlers who rack up double digit assists. When you have both a dominant big man and dominant perimeter scorer on the same team, in general, that big man will have a higher PER even if he's not the go-to guy on offense. Look at Dwight Howard's PER compared to his teammates and he isn't even any good as a go-to low post scorer.

Very poor argument.

Way to take an aside, turn it into a strawman, and fashion an elaborate argument that doesn't address the main point. Take PER out and Shaq was still the more offensive productive player. He averaged more points on a better percentage in all those playoff runs and was the catalyst that generated the offense. That's my main point. You're trying to spin it as if Kobe was equally productive offensively, which wasn't the case at all. You only gave a cursory mention to FG% without acknowledging (purposely) that efficiency is a huge part of the equation.

You're trying to make it a slight against Kobe. You even try to argue against statistical facts that prove you are wrong as it pertains to the 2000-01 and 2001-02 Lakers. Shaq was dominant. That's not something at issue here. No one is saying Shaq wasn't more dominant. We're talking specifically about who was the "go-to guy" on offense. Look at the FGA and FTA and scoring and usage percentage, and it's pretty much a wash between Shaq and Kobe those last two seasons of the threepeat, in both the regular season and the playoffs. Those are far more accurate indicators than the PER stat. The PER stat is complete horseshit if you're trying to prove who is the "go-to guy." Good stat for overall production and offensive efficiency? Sure. To prove who was the go-to guy? Not at all.

You're reducing everything to PPG, Usage, and shot attempts without considering the qualitative.

For example, let's say a team has an unstoppable player who is without question the go-to-guy. The opposing team chooses to triple team him every time he touches the ball, preventing him from getting a shot off the entire game. As a result the team's 4th best player had more shot attempts. Following your logic, the 4th best player on the team is more of a go-to-guy because he had more shot attempts. Doesn't make any sense.

Same applies to Shaq and Kobe. Many of Kobe's shot attempts were created off Shaq double-teams.

And it's funny how you talk about how other teams were concerned about Shaq more than Kobe when you look back at the two biggest challengers of the Lakers in the early 2000s, the San Antonio Spurs and the Sacramento Kings. After the 2000 playoffs, the Sacramento Kings acquired Doug Christie specifically to be a "Kobe stopper" after Kobe torched them in the playoffs. The San Antonio Spurs did the same exact thing after the 2001 playoffs by picking up Bruce Bowen. But teams were only concerned about Shaq? The two best teams in the early 2000s other than the Lakers and they made roster moves specifically because of Kobe.

By the 2000-01 season, Kobe had emerged as just as much of the go-to guy for the Lakers as Shaq was. Shaq was still a go-to guy, don't get me wrong. But it's about as equal as you can get.

Why wouldn't the championship caliber Kings and Spurs teams address their greatest weaknesses, which was perimeter defense? Both teams had the necessary interior D to somewhat contain Shaq (The Kings had Divac and Miller, the Spurs had Robinson and Duncan), but lacked any semblance of perimeter D (Before Bowen, the Spurs fielded Terry Porter and Danny Ferry, lol). Those movies would've been made even if you switched Kobe with Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady. I don't see how these teams going out and getting "Kobe stoppers" in any way proves that Kobe was the "go-to-guy."

That was Detroit's gameplan in the 2004 NBA Finals. Let Shaq get his, play him straight up, and focus on Kobe, shade him with 2-3 help defenders, make him take extremely difficult shots. It worked.

So? Amare was the go-to-guy on the run and gun Suns, and the Spurs always let him get his, preferring instead to limit Nash's penetration and shut down the 3 point shooting. Letting a player "get his" doesn't magically attribute go-to-guy status to other player(s).

And choosing to single cover Shaq and focus on Kobe further proves my point. Why? Because the Pistons knew that double teaming Shaq would create open looks for the shooters, open up the weakside for easy slashing and penetration, and risk getting more bigs than need be in foul trouble. By playing Shaq straight up, they were able to prevent the dangerous side effects that comes along with doubling.

Besides, Shaq was pissed he didn't more touches because he was having his way in the post. Kobe wanted (or was forced) to be the "go-to-guy" in that series and the results were one of the worst Finals performances in history.

FkLA

09-15-2010, 12:12 AM

lol kobe fans

kobe will never surpass magic and he isnt #2, old school laker fans need to get in here to put these bandwagon kobe fan boys in their place

SomeCallMeTim

09-15-2010, 12:20 AM

lol kobe fans

kobe will never surpass magic and he isnt #2, old school laker fans need to get in here to put these bandwagon kobe fan boys in their place

Not old school but I do know that Magic is #1 on the Lakers list, easily. Kareem #2. West/Kobe/Shaq at 3/4/5 and you can make pretty good arguments for each in how they should be ordered.

Wilt, Worthy, Baylor, Pau are all definitely top 10, I'm torn about who would fill the last spot. Maybe Gail Goodrich.

JamStone

09-15-2010, 12:49 AM

Way to take an aside, turn it into a strawman, and fashion an elaborate argument that doesn't address the main point. Take PER out and Shaq was still the more offensive productive player. He averaged more points on a better percentage in all those playoff runs and was the catalyst that generated the offense. That's my main point. You're trying to spin it as if Kobe was equally productive offensively, which wasn't the case at all. You only gave a cursory mention to FG% without acknowledging (purposely) that efficiency is a huge part of the equation.

Shaq was the more offensive productive player. The difference was negligible. Didn't you say Kobe's production was nowhere near Shaq's as it pertained to being the "go-to guy" right? Well that's simply not true.

Efficiency alone doesn't make one player more productive than another player. Nene isn't more productive than Carmelo. Kendrick Perkins isn't more productive than Paul Pierce. Efficiency is something you can factor in, but Shaq being more efficient than Kobe doesn't mean he was by far more productive. Actual and tangible production is scoring and rebounding and assists and blocks and steals. That's producing on the basketball court. Not all these manufactured Hollinger formulas trying to skew what actually happens on the court.

Efficiency isn't even that "huge" part of offensive production. In some of your arguments, you even prove that yourself with that "well Shaq gets double teamed and opens up shots for Kobe" point. That doesn't affect Shaq's efficiency, but you seem to think it supports the argument Shaq is more productive. Kobe can go 10 for 30 from the field and score 28 points and Andrew Bynum can go 3 for 4 from the field. Bynum is more efficient. Kobe is more productive. It's pretty simple. It's not that Shaq was more efficient that mattered most. It's the actual tangible production he had on the court. Efficiency counts for little if the actual production is not there. It's not something you completely ignore. But it's not that "huge" of a factor in assessing production.

You're reducing everything to PPG, Usage, and shot attempts without considering the qualitative.

For example, let's say a team has an unstoppable player who is without question the go-to-guy. The opposing team chooses to triple team him every time he touches the ball, preventing him from getting a shot off the entire game. As a result the team's 4th best player had more shot attempts. Following your logic, the 4th best player on the team is more of a go-to-guy because he had more shot attempts. Doesn't make any sense.

Same applies to Shaq and Kobe. Many of Kobe's shot attempts were created off Shaq double-teams.

Come on now. You're reaching here. Really reaching. When teams double and triple teamed Shaq, were they double and triple teaming him with Kobe's man? Did teams leave Kobe open to double Shaq? Or were they leaving Samaki Walker and Rick Fox and the like?

Shaq's game helped Kobe's But you'd be foolish to think it wasn't a mutually beneficial relationship. Kobe's game helped Shaq just as much. You put Kobe on the elbow on the side where Shaq was posting up, teams couldn't double team him from that side. You had Kobe get hot from the perimeter, defenses would also have to collapse on Kobe and Shaq would get even more easy buckets down low. It's not all Shaq made Kobe as a player. In fact, Shaq presented problems as well as advantages. How easy is it for an athletic slasher like Kobe who can easily break down his man off the dribble to get in a crowded lane? Shaq's presence in the lane on offense also prevented Kobe to fully exploit defenses off the dribble. That's like taking 1/3 of a player's one-on-one arsenal away from him. Sure, Shaq opened some things for Kobe and teammates, but it was most beneficial for spot up jump shooters who couldn't create off the dribble. Kobe had more than spot-up jump shooting skills.

So I'm sorry, but I can't buy this point at all. If you want to argue that Shaq gave Rick Fox a ton more open looks for spot up jumpers, ok. But Kobe? Teams weren't doubling and tripling off of Kobe. And Shaq taking a lot of space in the lane took away dribble drives out of Kobe's offensive arsenal.

Why wouldn't the championship caliber Kings and Spurs teams address their greatest weaknesses, which was perimeter defense? Both teams had the necessary interior D to somewhat contain Shaq (The Kings had Divac and Miller, the Spurs had Robinson and Duncan), but lacked any semblance of perimeter D (Before Bowen, the Spurs fielded Terry Porter and Danny Ferry, lol). Those movies would've been made even if you switched Kobe with Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady. I don't see how these teams going out and getting "Kobe stoppers" in any way proves that Kobe was the "go-to-guy."

You said you didn't hear back then about teams game-planning only for Kobe. Well, once Kobe emerged as one of the best perimeter scorers in the league, you didn't hear teams game-planning only for Shaq either. It wasn't just about Shaq, Shaq, Shaq. Kobe became a threat to drop 30 just as much as Shaq was. That's why I mention Doug Christie and Bruce Bowen. Teams were not ONLY game planning for Shaq. And that's your suggestion. And the Kobe stoppers specifically point to that. And they specifically show how more of an equal threat Kobe had become as early as the 2000-01 season.

So? Amare was the go-to-guy on the run and gun Suns, and the Spurs always let him get his, preferring instead to limit Nash's penetration and shut down the 3 point shooting. Letting a player "get his" doesn't magically attribute go-to-guy status to other player(s).

And choosing to single cover Shaq and focus on Kobe further proves my point. Why? Because the Pistons knew that double teaming Shaq would create open looks for the shooters, open up the weakside for easy slashing and penetration, and risk getting more bigs than need be in foul trouble. By playing Shaq straight up, they were able to prevent the dangerous side effects that comes along with doubling.

Besides, Shaq was pissed he didn't more touches because he was having his way in the post. Kobe wanted (or was forced) to be the "go-to-guy" in that series and the results were one of the worst Finals performances in history.

I'd argue Nash was more of a go-to guy on the Suns than Amare. Amare was a primary scorer, but Nash made everything happened. He facilitated on basically every play when he was on the court. Nash has the basketball in his hands when it mattered late in close games. The Spurs letting Amare get his and focusing on Nash supports the notion that Nash was the real go-to guy on those Suns teams.

Lol, it's amusing watching you try to twist things. The Pistons focused on Kobe because Kobe was as much of a threat on the Lakers defense as Shaq was. You try to stop one or the other. It's near impossible to stop both. The Pistons chose Kobe because they felt like Ben could do a good job on Shaq in single coverage. It was as much a decision based on the personnel the Pistons had as anything. But the Pistons focusing on Kobe does nothing to further your point. Double and tripling off of Devean George doesn't make Kobe better. Doubling off of Slava Medvedenko doesn't help Kobe. WTH? Did you even think before posting that crap argument?

Kobe wanted a Finals MVP in 2004 and it bit him in the ass. He had already become one of the two go-to guys on the Lakers several years before the 2004 NBA Finals.

Venti Quattro

09-15-2010, 02:22 AM

Wilt, Worthy, Baylor, Pau are all definitely top 10, I'm torn about who would fill the last spot. Maybe Gail Goodrich.

Mike Penberthy. The king of walk-ins.

midnightpulp

09-15-2010, 02:49 AM

Shaq was the more offensive productive player. The difference was negligible. Didn't you say Kobe's production was nowhere near Shaq's as it pertained to being the "go-to guy" right? Well that's simply not true.

Efficiency alone doesn't make one player more productive than another player. Nene isn't more productive than Carmelo. Kendrick Perkins isn't more productive than Paul Pierce. Efficiency is something you can factor in, but Shaq being more efficient than Kobe doesn't mean he was by far more productive. Actual and tangible production is scoring and rebounding and assists and blocks and steals. That's producing on the basketball court. Not all these manufactured Hollinger formulas trying to skew what actually happens on the court.

Efficiency isn't even that "huge" part of offensive production. In some of your arguments, you even prove that yourself with that "well Shaq gets double teamed and opens up shots for Kobe" point. That doesn't affect Shaq's efficiency, but you seem to think it supports the argument Shaq is more productive. Kobe can go 10 for 30 from the field and score 28 points and Andrew Bynum can go 3 for 4 from the field. Bynum is more efficient. Kobe is more productive. It's pretty simple. It's not that Shaq was more efficient that mattered most. It's the actual tangible production he had on the court. Efficiency counts for little if the actual production is not there. It's not something you completely ignore. But it's not that "huge" of a factor in assessing production.

False analogy. Efficiency does play a big part in the equation when both players are taking the same amount of shots. Andrew Bynum being "efficient" on 3-4 of shooting isn't the same level of efficiency as Shaq going 14-20. Shaq was far more productive, even though the stats say Bynum was more efficient. Comparing Nene and Carmelo, or Kobe and Bynum and then trying to use that as proof that "efficiency" doesn't translate into production is laughable. If you're going to draw comparisons to highlight your argument, make them meaningful.

Here's an example of how an efficient FG% translates into much better production (when comparing two first option type of players, not Nene and Carmelo, lol): In the 02 playoffs, Shaq and Kobe had a relatively close points per game average of 28 and 26, respectively. Taken at face value, it would seem their offensive production is virtually the same. But when we examine the stats more closely, we discover that Shaq averaged 1.41 points per shot and that Kobe Bryant averaged 1.17 points per shot. A quarter of a point differential is a huge separation. That means Shaq averages 5 more points per 20 shots than Kobe. You might think that the difference is "negligible," but I don't know any rational person who would think that a 25% difference between anything is "negligible."

Seriously, Jam, you're arguing against hard numbers here. Higher FG% does equate to higher production (if the players being measured against each other take a similar amount of shots).

Come on now. You're reaching here. Really reaching. When teams double and triple teamed Shaq, were they double and triple teaming him with Kobe's man? Did teams leave Kobe open to double Shaq? Or were they leaving Samaki Walker and Rick Fox and the like?

Shaq's game helped Kobe's But you'd be foolish to think it wasn't a mutually beneficial relationship. Kobe's game helped Shaq just as much. You put Kobe on the elbow on the side where Shaq was posting up, teams couldn't double team him from that side. You had Kobe get hot from the perimeter, defenses would also have to collapse on Kobe and Shaq would get even more easy buckets down low. It's not all Shaq made Kobe as a player. In fact, Shaq presented problems as well as advantages. How easy is it for an athletic slasher like Kobe who can easily break down his man off the dribble to get in a crowded lane? Shaq's presence in the lane on offense also prevented Kobe to fully exploit defenses off the dribble. That's like taking 1/3 of a player's one-on-one arsenal away from him. Sure, Shaq opened some things for Kobe and teammates, but it was most beneficial for spot up jump shooters who couldn't create off the dribble. Kobe had more than spot-up jump shooting skills.

So I'm sorry, but I can't buy this point at all. If you want to argue that Shaq gave Rick Fox a ton more open looks for spot up jumpers, ok. But Kobe? Teams weren't doubling and tripling off of Kobe. And Shaq taking a lot of space in the lane took away dribble drives out of Kobe's offensive arsenal.

This is one of the worst counterpoints you've made in this argument. This whole "Shaq clogged the lane, thus impairing Kobe's ability to drive more effectively" idea is flat out nonsense, mostly propagated by Kobe homers who insist we believe that Shaq held Kobe back in some capacity. Shaq did not effect Kobe's ability to dribble drive as much as believed, not much at all, to be honest. Quote Doug Collins in the following video (around the 7:00 min mark): "The Spurs are going to have to figure out a way to stop Kobe's dribble penetration." Yep, Shaq took dribble drives out of Kobe's arsenal so much that Kobe was able to penetrate and finish at will against the best interior D of the era.

JkvpnmAk2xU

Low-post players do not take up that much amount of space in the lane. The 3 second rule ensures they can't park themselves in the lane and back their defender down indefinitely until they get the shot they want. Also worth mentioning is that Duncan plays roughly as much as Shaq in the post, and Manu and Parker have no problems penetrating. Parker doesn't shoot 50% from the field in a year if not for Duncan opening things up inside. Ask any Spurs fan why Manu and Parker have such liberal driving lanes to work with.

Regarding Shaq and Kobe, it doesn't matter if Kobe's man leaves him to double Shaq. What would often happen, at least when those Lakers played the Spurs, is that Shaq would post up Robinson or Duncan, Robinson or Duncan would collapse on Shaq, Kobe would slash by his primary defender into the open area that was previously patrolled by Duncan or Robinson, Shaq would find him with a pass, and a layup or dunk would ensue, usually with posterizing results.

And of course they mutually benefited from each other, but Kobe (like Manu or Parker with Duncan) benefited most. Good post players open up lanes via seals and drawing the interior defender away from the basket area. When a team has a viable low-post option, the opposing interior defender has to guard him in the post. Now his back is turned from the basket should the post player find a cutter, causing him to arrive late to challenge the shot. Sure, sometimes post players create crowds, but they help slashing more than they hurt it.

You said you didn't hear back then about teams game-planning only for Kobe. Well, once Kobe emerged as one of the best perimeter scorers in the league, you didn't hear teams game-planning only for Shaq either. It wasn't just about Shaq, Shaq, Shaq. Kobe became a threat to drop 30 just as much as Shaq was. That's why I mention Doug Christie and Bruce Bowen. Teams were not ONLY game planning for Shaq. And that's your suggestion. And the Kobe stoppers specifically point to that. And they specifically show how more of an equal threat Kobe had become as early as the 2000-01 season.

Shaq was always the primary focus of opposing defenses. Always. Sure Kobe was a concern, but he didn't cause the hand-wringing among head coaches like Shaq did.

I'd argue Nash was more of a go-to guy on the Suns than Amare. Amare was the primary scorer, but Nash made everything happened. He facilitated on basically every play when he was on the court. Nash has the basketball in his hands when it mattered late in close games. The Spurs letting Amare get his and focusing on Nash supports the notion that Nash was the real go-to guy on those Suns teams.

Now you've contradicted your own argument of FGA and PPG equating to production and defining who the "go-to-guy" is. You used that measurement to demonstrate that Kobe was just as much a go-to-guy as Shaq was, but now it doesn't apply to Amare and Nash? Amare's PPG and FGA are quite higher than Nash's, so by your logic, Amare is the go-to-guy. Thanks for unintentionally proving my point. In much the same way you said Nash is the go-to-guy because he's the main offensive catalyst, Shaq was for the Lakers, regardless of what the FGA and PPG stats are.

Jam, it's common knowledge that Shaq would touch the ball first and the offensive would play off of him. Sure, there were plays where Kobe would initiate the offense, but the majority of the time, things ran through Shaq. I don't know why you're trying so hard to dispute this.

Lol, it's amusing watching you try to twist things. The Pistons focused on Kobe because Kobe was as much of a threat on the Lakers defense as Shaq was. You try to stop one or the other. It's near impossible to stop both. The Pistons chose Kobe because they felt like Ben could do a good job on Shaq in single coverage. It was as much a decision based on the personnel the Pistons had as anything. But the Pistons focusing on Kobe does nothing to further your point. Double and tripling off of Devean George doesn't make Kobe better. Doubling off of Slava Medvedenko doesn't help Kobe. WTH? Did you even think before posting that crap argument?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last third of the paragraph (did you mean to say that "double teaming Devean George, etc doesn't make Kobe better?" I would argue that double teaming any player would help the teammates not being doubled. It's why coaches hate double teaming. It opens up the offense for the rest of the team). But I guess I'll reply that the Pistons chose Kobe because they felt it was more beneficial to crowd him than Shaq. Doubling perimeter players is less damaging than doubling post players, because doubling the former doesn't compromise your interior D, which is more important than perimeter D. Also, players doubling on the perimeter can recover a lot more quickly if their primary man should get open than if they had to double a player down in the post.

JamStone

09-15-2010, 09:53 AM

False analogy. Efficiency does play a big part in the equation when both players are taking the same amount of shots. Andrew Bynum being "efficient" on 3-4 of shooting isn't the same level of efficiency as Shaq going 14-20. Shaq was far more productive, even though the stats say Bynum was more efficient. Comparing Nene and Carmelo, or Kobe and Bynum and then trying to use that as proof that "efficiency" doesn't translate into production is laughable. If you're going to draw comparisons to highlight your argument, make them meaningful.

You still don't get that efficiency does not = production. Offensive production is scoring points, getting the ball in the basket. The percentage at which a player gets the ball in the basket is efficiency. A player scoring 20 points on 10 shots is still scoring the same exact 20 points as the player scoring 20 points on 20 shots.

You're getting wrapped up in the how instead of the what. Production is the what. Efficiency is the how. That was the purpose of giving examples like I gave. Player A scores 20 points on 10-for-10 shooting and Player B scores 20 points on 10-for-20 shooting. Who produced more points? They produced the same amount of points, Einstein. It's the same production. Who was more efficient? Player A obviously. But the production was the same.

Production does not = efficiency.

Here's an example of how an efficient FG% translates into much better production (when comparing two first option type of players, not Nene and Carmelo, lol): In the 02 playoffs, Shaq and Kobe had a relatively close points per game average of 28 and 26, respectively. Taken at face value, it would seem their offensive production is virtually the same. But when we examine the stats more closely, we discover that Shaq averaged 1.41 points per shot and that Kobe Bryant averaged 1.17 points per shot. A quarter of a point differential is a huge separation. That means Shaq averages 5 more points per 20 shots than Kobe. You might think that the difference is "negligible," but I don't know any rational person who would think that a 25% difference between anything is "negligible."

Seriously, Jam, you're arguing against hard numbers here. Higher FG% does equate to higher production (if the players being measured against each other take a similar amount of shots).

Seriously, you're making the wrong argument. Production is production. Efficiency is efficiency. Get that through your skull, and you'll realize that Kobe's production was not as you put it "nowhere near Shaq's." Silly little you even admitted as much in the above quote when you acknowledged the "offensive production is virtually the same." Exactly. Stop arguing the "how" when the "what" is at issue here. The actual production. It's almost like arguing a dunk is better than a lay-up. 2 points is 2 points.

This is one of the worst counterpoints you've made in this argument. This whole "Shaq clogged the lane, thus impairing Kobe's ability to drive more effectively" idea is flat out nonsense, mostly propagated by Kobe homers who insist we believe that Shaq held Kobe back in some capacity. Shaq did not effect Kobe's ability to dribble drive as much as believed, not much at all, to be honest. Quote Doug Collins in the following video (around the 7:00 min mark): "The Spurs are going to have to figure out a way to stop Kobe's dribble penetration." Yep, Shaq took dribble drives out of Kobe's arsenal so much that Kobe was able to penetrate and finish at will against the best interior D of the era.

Shaq takes up space in the lane. That's not debatable or refutable. And it did affect and restrict what Kobe could do offensively. Did it mean Kobe could never get to the rim with Shaq in the game? Of course not. Kobe is skilled enough and good enough to figure ways to score inside even with Shaq on offense. Using angles, slashing from the weak side, getting the buckets in transition or delayed transition, even using Shaq to help him get to the rim.

I said Shaq presented disadvantages as well as advantages. You wanted to talk about Shaq creating open shots for Kobe. Well Shaq took away easy shots as well. Not all the time. Didn't prevent Kobe from scoring at the rim completely. But Shaq didn't open nearly as many open shots for Kobe as you suggest either. Kobe still created the vast majority of his shots, not Shaq. I was giving you a counter to that point.

Low-post players do not take up that much amount of space in the lane. The 3 second rule ensures they can't park themselves in the lane and back their defender down indefinitely until they get the shot they want. Also worth mentioning is that Duncan plays roughly as much as Shaq in the post, and Manu and Parker have no problems penetrating. Parker doesn't shoot 50% from the field in a year if not for Duncan opening things up inside. Ask any Spurs fan why Manu and Parker have such liberal driving lanes to work with.

Poor comparison. Duncan did not play like Shaq. In the halfcourt set, Shaq exclusively played on the low block. He didn't leave the low block. He was always there. Duncan, especially when Parker and Ginobili emerged as great slashers, did not exclusively play on the low block. Duncan had the skill set and midrange jumper to play either the high post or out to the extended elbow for that patented midrange bankshot. That means he draws his defender out of the paint up to 15 feet away from the basket. When did Shaq ever do that. Duncan's perimeter skills allowed for him to play away from the paint and give more space and more of an open lane for slashers like Manu and Parker. Not to mention, Duncan in his prime was a great pick-and-roll big man. Moreover, Parker was a one man fastbreak. A lot of his drives and easy buckets at the rim, particularly his first few years in the league, occurred in transition or delayed transition. This comparison holds no water.

Regarding Shaq and Kobe, it doesn't matter if Kobe's man leaves him to double Shaq. What would often happen, at least when those Lakers played the Spurs, is that Shaq would post up Robinson or Duncan, Robinson or Duncan would collapse on Shaq, Kobe would slash by his primary defender into the open area that was previously patrolled by Duncan or Robinson, Shaq would find him with a pass, and a layup or dunk would ensue, usually with posterizing results.

Lol happens with or without Shaq. And hell, Kobe "slashing by his primary defender" is something Kobe specifically has to do to get open. That's not Shaq creating an open shot for Kobe. That's Kobe slashing by his defender to get to an open area to get an open shot. Kobe could do the same exact thing with Luke Walton playing the low post and not commanding a double team. It's a matter of finding the creases and angles and getting to that open spot. How many times a game do you think Kobe getting a good look on offense was directly a result of Shaq getting double teamed? Couple times a game? Handful at most? I'd say a couple times a game. Even playing with Shaq, Kobe still created most of his own shots himself. How many times a game do you think Shaq being planted in that low block prevented a one-on-one dribble drive by Kobe or forced him into either taking a jumper or passing the ball? Handful of times a game? Probably. There were advantages playing with Shaq and disadvantages.

And of course they mutually benefited from each other, but Kobe (like Manu or Parker with Duncan) benefited most. Good post players open up lanes via seals and drawing the interior defender away from the basket area. When a team has a viable low-post option, the opposing interior defender has to guard him in the post. Now his back is turned from the basket should the post player find a cutter, causing him to arrive late to challenge the shot. Sure, sometimes post players create crowds, but they help slashing more than they hurt it.

Just like an explosive perimeter scorer opens things up for a low post scorer. It's a time tested formula. Inside and outside scoring. One opens things up for the other, vice versa. Kobe has proven his own dominance as a perimeter scorer. Shaq was dominant. But Kobe's emergence as an elite, explosive scorer is what made the Lakers unstoppable on offense. Creating an effective balance with the two was the reason they threepeated.

Shaq was always the primary focus of opposing defenses. Always. Sure Kobe was a concern, but he didn't cause the hand-wringing among head coaches like Shaq did.

Shaq was absolutely a focus of the defense. As was Kobe. Go back to my examples. The 2000 Kings and the 2001 Spurs were "more" concerned, yes "MORE" concerned about Kobe shredding their defenses. It's not like Shaq was playing poorly. He was still scoring 27-28 points on 60% shooting against those Kings and Spurs. But it was because Kobe was absolutely carving up their defenses that those two teams lost in those two respective playoff series. Kobe was actually more of a focus of those teams after 2000 for the Kings and after 2001 for the Spurs.

That's the point. It wasn't just Shaq, Shaq, Shaq as you said earlier. It wasn't even mostly Shaq once Kobe emerged.

Now you've contradicted your own argument of FGA and PPG equating to production and defining who the "go-to-guy" is. You used that measurement to demonstrate that Kobe was just as much a go-to-guy as Shaq was, but now it doesn't apply to Amare and Nash? Amare's PPG and FGA are quite higher than Nash's, so by your logic, Amare is the go-to-guy. Thanks for unintentionally proving my point. In much the same way you said Nash is the go-to-guy because he's the main offensive catalyst, Shaq was for the Lakers, regardless of what the FGA and PPG stats are.

With Shaq and Kobe, I went straight to the scoring. I should have included assists. I think playmaking is just as important to identifying a "go-to" player as scoring and number of field goal attempts are. I didn't include assists initially because neither Shaq nor Kobe were high assist guys and the difference between the two in assists wasn't that great. But if I did include assists to represent playmaking, that only strengthens the argument that Kobe was just as much of a go-to guy as Shaq.

And so let's get into how that affects what I'm saying about Nash and Amare. When you factor playmaking and creating shots opportunities and getting assists, you can easily see why Nash was more of the go-to guy for the Suns. It's something you'll see with other high assist point guards. It's why Chris Paul is more of the "go-to" guy than David West even if David West takes more shots, score more points, and/or shoots a higher percentage. Go back to the best point guard of all in Magic Johnson. Even in seasons where James Worthy scored more points, took more shots, had a better FG%, Magic was still more of the go-to guy than Worthy was. it's because playmaking directly leads to scoring opportunities via the assist.

So I apologize for not making that distinction and not adding the assist into my original post about this. Kobe always had more assists than Shaq in those last two seasons of the threepeat, in the regular season and the playoffs. It represents scoring production. It another factor that represents how an offense goes through a player.

I should have included the assist earlier and made the distinction when high assist point guards.

Jam, it's common knowledge that Shaq would touch the ball first and the offensive would play off of him. Sure, there were plays where Kobe would initiate the offense, but the majority of the time, things ran through Shaq. I don't know why you're trying so hard to dispute this.

Touching the ball first doesn't mean that player is the "go-to" guy. Establishing the low post doesn't mean that player is the "go-to" guy. There were games where the Lakers tried to attempt to establish the inside first through Andrew Bynum and then through Pau and let them get touches early. That doesn't make Kobe a second option. It's establishing the low post. Same with who I just talked about with Chris Paul. Establishing David West inside doesn't mean David West is more of the go-to guy than CP3. It just doesn't.

Sure, the offense ran through Shaq a lot. I'm not disputing it didn't run through Shaq. I'm challenging the notion that Kobe wasn't essentially an equal "go-to guy" to Shaq by the 2000-01 season. It's not hard to realize it. The offense ran through Shaq early, especially in the first and third quarters, established the low post and the Lakers went from there. That doesn't define who the go-to guy is. The Lakers often do the same thing. It doesn't mean Andrew Bynum or Pau Gasol are the go-to guys.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last third of the paragraph (did you mean to say that "double teaming Devean George, etc doesn't make Kobe better?" I would argue that double teaming any player would help the teammates not being doubled. It's why coaches hate double teaming. It opens up the offense for the rest of the team). But I guess I'll reply that the Pistons chose Kobe because they felt it was more beneficial to crowd him than Shaq. Doubling perimeter players is less damaging than doubling post players, because doubling the former doesn't compromise your interior D, which is more important than perimeter D. Also, players doubling on the perimeter can recover a lot more quickly if their primary man should get open than if they had to double a player down in the post.

The point was you said you never heard of teams focusing on stopping Kobe. I gave you an example. In fact, with the Kings after 2000 and Spurs after 2001, I gave you three. But, I'm getting tired of typing, but I do have to address your thoughts on double teaming...

You have it backwards. Doubling out on the perimeter is more damaging because doubling out on the perimeter generally ultimately ends up with opening up the paint and easy lay-ups. Doubling out on the perimeter generally means the double teaming player has longer distances to go to double and to recover. That compromises the defense much more. When a team doubles out on the perimeter, players who are doubled off of are taught to go straight to the basket. That's why you don't see nearly as much double teaming on perimeter players. Double teaming a low post player generally means you're sending more defenders towards the paint and basket area, meaning you're opening the perimeter for jumpers. Doubling the low post generally means you're sending a player either from the high post or from the elbow, which is almost always a shorter distance to go to double and a much shorter distance to recover.

Doubling the low post will often result in an open jump shot. Doubling out on the perimeter (especially the further out you get to double) generally ends up in a lay-up or dunk.

ohmwrecker

09-15-2010, 11:00 AM

No love for the Mad Dog?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UxKFgEgTqeU/TB_i7MIs23I/AAAAAAAAADQ/BgkdgGmQjhE/s1600/mark-madsen.jpg

ohmwrecker

09-15-2010, 11:02 AM

lol kobe fans

kobe will never surpass magic and he isnt #2, old school laker fans need to get in here to put these bandwagon kobe fan boys in their place

Are there any here?

midnightpulp

09-15-2010, 11:19 AM

You still don't get that efficiency does not = production. Offensive production is scoring points, getting the ball in the basket. The percentage at which a player gets the ball in the basket is efficiency. A player scoring 20 points on 10 shots is still scoring the same exact 20 points as the player scoring 20 points on 20 shots.

You're getting wrapped up in the how instead of the what. Production is the what. Efficiency is the how. That was the purpose of giving examples like I gave. Player A scores 20 points on 10-for-10 shooting and Player B scores 20 points on 10-for-20 shooting. Who produced more points? They produced the same amount of points, Einstein. It's the same production. Who was more efficient? Player A obviously. But the production was the same.

Production does not = efficiency.

Seriously, you're making the wrong argument. Production is production. Efficiency is efficiency. Get that through your skull, and you'll realize that Kobe's production was not as you put it "nowhere near Shaq's." Silly little you even admitted as much in the above quote when you acknowledged the "offensive production is virtually the same." Exactly. Stop arguing the "how" when the "what" is at issue here. The actual production. It's almost like arguing a dunk is better than a lay-up. 2 points is 2 points.

1.41 points per shot is more productive than 1.17 points per shot. You're also neglecting the fact of how missed shots give the opposing team more shot opportunities, which cancels out some of the production that player produced. 10-10 is MUCH more productive than 10-20.

Shaq takes up space in the lane. That's not debatable or refutable. And it did affect and restrict what Kobe could do offensively. Did it mean Kobe could never get to the rim with Shaq in the game? Of course not. Kobe is skilled enough and good enough to figure ways to score inside even with Shaq on offense. Using angles, slashing from the weak side, getting the buckets in transition or delayed transition, even using Shaq to help him get to the rim.

I said Shaq presented disadvantages as well as advantages. You wanted to talk about Shaq creating open shots for Kobe. Well Shaq took away easy shots as well. Not all the time. Didn't prevent Kobe from scoring at the rim completely. But Shaq didn't open nearly as many open shots for Kobe as you suggest either. Kobe still created the vast majority of his shots, not Shaq. I was giving you a counter to that point.

You said "Shaq took dribble drives out of Kobe's arsenal." I showed evidence to the contrary, and now you're backtracking.

And Shaq helped Kobe's offensive game more than hurt it. That's my essential point.

Poor comparison. Duncan did not play like Shaq. In the halfcourt set, Shaq exclusively played on the low block. He didn't leave the low block. He was always there. Duncan, especially when Parker and Ginobili emerged as great slashers, did not exclusively play on the low block. Duncan had the skill set and midrange jumper to play either the high post or out to the extended elbow for that patented midrange bankshot. That means he draws his defender out of the paint up to 15 feet away from the basket. When did Shaq ever do that. Duncan's perimeter skills allowed for him to play away from the paint and give more space and more of an open lane for slashers like Manu and Parker. Not to mention, Duncan in his prime was a great pick-and-roll big man. Moreover, Parker was a one man fastbreak. A lot of his drives and easy buckets at the rim, particularly his first few years in the league, occurred in transition or delayed transition. This comparison holds no water.

I said Duncan plays "roughly" the same amount of time in the low post as Shaq. I think 75% of his shots come from there. Anyhow, maybe
"roughly" wasn't the best word choice. However, that doesn't invalidate my point. Ask other Spurs fans about how Duncan in the low post helps Manu and Parker's dribble penetration. Duncan, like Shaq, is a master of sealing his man off near the basket, taking away any chance that defender might've had at blocking the shot. Shaq did this Robinson countless times in those days.

Lol happens with or without Shaq. And hell, Kobe "slashing by his primary defender" is something Kobe specifically has to do to get open. That's not Shaq creating an open shot for Kobe. That's Kobe slashing by his defender to get to an open area to get an open shot. Kobe could do the same exact thing with Luke Walton playing the low post and not commanding a double team. It's a matter of finding the creases and angles and getting to that open spot. How many times a game do you think Kobe getting a good look on offense was directly a result of Shaq getting double teamed? Couple times a game? Handful at most? I'd say a couple times a game. Even playing with Shaq, Kobe still created most of his own shots himself. How many times a game do you think Shaq being planted in that low block prevented a one-on-one dribble drive by Kobe or forced him into either taking a jumper or passing the ball? Handful of times a game? Probably. There were advantages playing with Shaq and disadvantages.

Yeah? How's that open area created where Kobe slashes into? The interior defense collapsing on Shaq, opening up the weak side.

Just like an explosive perimeter scorer opens things up for a low post scorer. It's a time tested formula. Inside and outside scoring. One opens things up for the other, vice versa. Kobe has proven his own dominance as a perimeter scorer. Shaq was dominant. But Kobe's emergence as an elite, explosive scorer is what made the Lakers unstoppable on offense. Creating an effective balance with the two was the reason they threepeated.

True. Shaq was still the more important component, though.

Shaq was absolutely a focus of the defense. As was Kobe. Go back to my examples. The 2000 Kings and the 2001 Spurs were "more" concerned, yes "MORE" concerned about Kobe shredding their defenses. It's not like Shaq was playing poorly. He was still scoring 27-28 points on 60% shooting against those Kings and Spurs. But it was because Kobe was absolutely carving up their defenses that those two teams lost in those two respective playoff series. Kobe was actually more of a focus of those teams after 2000 for the Kings and after 2001 for the Spurs.

That's the point. It wasn't just Shaq, Shaq, Shaq as you said earlier. It wasn't even mostly Shaq once Kobe emerged.

Ask any opposing coach of that era who their primary focus was when they were playing the Lakers, and they'll tell you it was Shaq.

With Shaq and Kobe, I went straight to the scoring. I should have included assists. I think playmaking is just as important to identifying a "go-to" player as scoring and number of field goal attempts are. I didn't include assists initially because neither Shaq nor Kobe were high assist guys and the difference between the two in assists wasn't that great. But if I did include assists to represent playmaking, that only strengthens the argument that Kobe was just as much of a go-to guy as Shaq.

And so let's get into how that affects what I'm saying about Nash and Amare. When you factor playmaking and creating shots opportunities and getting assists, you can easily see why Nash was more of the go-to guy for the Suns. It's something you'll see with other high assist point guards. It's why Chris Paul is more of the "go-to" guy than David West even if David West takes more shots, score more points, and/or shoots a higher percentage. Go back to the best point guard of all in Magic Johnson. Even in seasons where James Worthy scored more points, took more shots, had a better FG%, Magic was still more of the go-to guy than Worthy was. it's because playmaking directly leads to scoring opportunities via the assist.

So I apologize for not making that distinction and not adding the assist into my original post about this. Kobe always had more assists than Shaq in those last two seasons of the threepeat, in the regular season and the playoffs. It represents scoring production. It another factor that represents how an offense goes through a player.

I should have included the assist earlier and made the distinction when high assist point guards.

You're neglecting "hockey assists." Passing out of double-teams from the low-post usually results in the pass that leads to the open shot. Derek Fisher pretty much lived off Shaq double-teams in some form.

Touching the ball first doesn't mean that player is the "go-to" guy. Establishing the low post doesn't mean that player is the "go-to" guy. There were games where the Lakers tried to attempt to establish the inside first through Andrew Bynum and then through Pau and let them get touches early. That doesn't make Kobe a second option. It's establishing the low post. Same with who I just talked about with Chris Paul. Establishing David West inside doesn't mean David West is more of the go-to guy than CP3. It just doesn't.

Sure, the offense ran through Shaq a lot. I'm not disputing it didn't run through Shaq. I'm challenging the notion that Kobe wasn't essentially an equal "go-to guy" to Shaq by the 2000-01 season. It's not hard to realize it. The offense ran through Shaq early, especially in the first and third quarters, established the low post and the Lakers went from there. That doesn't define who the go-to guy is. The Lakers often do the same thing. It doesn't mean Andrew Bynum or Pau Gasol are the go-to guys.

You can't have it both ways. Either the offense ran through Shaq and he was the clear number 1 option, or he wasn't. Even if 55% of the offense ran through him while the other 45% ran through Kobe, it still means Shaq is the primary option. You just can't say, "Well, that's close enough that it's 'essentially' the same." It's not.

The point was you said you never heard of teams focusing on stopping Kobe. I gave you an example. In fact, with the Kings after 2000 and Spurs after 2001, I gave you three. But, I'm getting tired of typing, but I do have to address your thoughts on double teaming...

I stand by this. Shaq was the primary focus of the defense. Kobe was a heavy concern, no doubt, but defenses planned around stopping Shaq first, aside from the '04 Pistons.

You have it backwards. Doubling out on the perimeter is more damaging because doubling out on the perimeter generally ultimately ends up with opening up the paint and easy lay-ups. Doubling out on the perimeter generally means the double teaming player has longer distances to go to double and to recover. That compromises the defense much more. When a team doubles out on the perimeter, players who are doubled off of are taught to go straight to the basket. That's why you don't see nearly as much double teaming on perimeter players. Double teaming a low post player generally means you're sending more defenders towards the paint and basket area, meaning you're opening the perimeter for jumpers. Doubling the low post generally means you're sending a player either from the high post or from the elbow, which is almost always a shorter distance to go to double and a much shorter distance to recover.

Doubling the low post will often result in an open jump shot. Doubling out on the perimeter (especially the further out you get to double) generally ends up in a lay-up or dunk.

Guards and SFs usually double out on the perimeter, so how is that supposed to lead to "easy layups" when the interior defender's position isn't compromised?

No, players doubling on the perimeter can recover quicker. The Lakers for instance. Kobe will get doubled on the wing, usually by Fisher's primary defender, leaving Fish open at the top of the key. If Kobe chooses to pass back to him so Fisher can take the open shot, the player previously defending Fisher only has a short distance to go, from the wing to the top of the key.

Jeez, if perimeter players put more pressure on the opposing defense, which is what you're suggesting, then head coaches have gotten it wrong all this time by building around low-post players.

Anyhow, I think I've made all the points and counterpoints I can. I'll let you have the last word.

That said, I respect what you bring to the discussion.

TheNextGen

09-15-2010, 11:23 AM

damn good arguements here....

I think i'd go with Jams on this one.

Killakobe81

09-15-2010, 11:39 AM

Are there any here?

I'm old school and I agree Kobe is not at the top of my greatest Laker list. But really that has more to do with growing up and learning ball during the showtime era ...Magic may always be my favorite Laker...but as the years have passed, it's harder to deny Kobe's place near the top of any Laker list. But really what puts Magic over the top for me is the intangibles, putting the Lakers back in it's rightful place as an elite franchise and making Laker home games must see events. Without Magic L.A. would always be a draw ...but he brought winning back to the table. With Magic running the show they made the Finals almost every year and won 5. Kobe has been a great winner as well ...but his on the court and off the court demeanor is sometimes hard to stomach ...so I get why many despise him. However when it comes to just playing ball ...you can't deny this man's greatness. And the lame attempts to do in this forum are hilarious. Kobe is not the greatest Laker in my book but a strong case can be made. And since Jamstone is better at putting that case to words, I'll leave that to him.

HarlemHeat37

09-15-2010, 12:27 PM

damn good arguements here....

I think i'd go with Jams on this one.

Hm, I wonder why..

ohmwrecker

09-15-2010, 12:39 PM

I'm old school and I agree Kobe is not at the top of my greatest Laker list. But really that has more to do with growing up and learning ball during the showtime era ...Magic may always be my favorite Laker...but as the years have passed, it's harder to deny Kobe's place near the top of any Laker list. But really what puts Magic over the top for me is the intangibles, putting the Lakers back in it's rightful place as an elite franchise and making Laker home games must see events. Without Magic L.A. would always be a draw ...but he brought winning back to the table. With Magic running the show they made the Finals almost every year and won 5. Kobe has been a great winner as well ...but his on the court and off the court demeanor is sometimes hard to stomach ...so I get why many despise him. However when it comes to just playing ball ...you can't deny this man's greatness. And the lame attempts to do in this forum are hilarious. Kobe is not the greatest Laker in my book but a strong case can be made. And since Jamstone is better at putting that case to words, I'll leave that to him.

This is probably why you are the only Laker fan on ST whose opinion I respect. I was a "showtime" Laker fan as a kid and Kobe doesn't crack my top 5.

TheGreatest23

09-15-2010, 01:10 PM

This is probably why you are the only Laker fan on ST whose opinion I respect. I was a "showtime" Laker fan as a kid and Kobe doesn't crack my top 5.

LOL @ Kobe not being a top 5 Laker. :lmao

Killakobe81

09-15-2010, 01:12 PM

This is probably why you are the only Laker fan on ST whose opinion I respect. I was a "showtime" Laker fan as a kid and Kobe doesn't crack my top 5.

I can respect that, especially if you look at intangibles ...I just hate when people use that he is a selfish or a prick to determine his legacy. Kareem is also hurt by the media perceptions of him. If Kareem was a "clown-prince" and as engaging as Shaq, they would be more support for him as a threat to MJ as the GOAT ...but because he was not likeable or marketable ... I think people tend to overlook him to some degree, he is not underrated necessarily ...but I think it's crazy when people put Shaq or Hakeem over him at center. Kareem in his prime was evrey bit as dominant a scorer, and a better fundamental player than Shaq and his sky hook was more unstoppable than the "dreamshake".

ohmwrecker

09-15-2010, 01:21 PM

LOL @ Kobe not being a top 5 Laker. :lmao

1 Kareem
2 Magic
3 Wilt
4 West
5 Baylor

6 Shaq or Kobe (I just can't put either one over Baylor)

JamStone

09-15-2010, 01:36 PM

I realize at some point (probably already), we're just going in circles...

1.41 points per shot is more productive than 1.17 points per shot. You're also neglecting the fact of how missed shots give the opposing team more shot opportunities, which cancels out some of the production that player produced. 10-10 is MUCH more productive than 10-20.

I don't know how many times I have to say it. It's not "more productive." It's "more efficient." There is a very distinct difference. Production is the actual scoring. Efficiency is the rate at which a players scores. Two different things.

Problem with your "points per shot" stat is that it measures efficiency, not production. Last season (2009-10), Shaq still had a better "points per shot" than Kobe. Are you going to argue Shaq was more productive than Kobe last season too? Production does not = efficiency.

A higher shooting percentage, a better "points per shot" represents efficiency. 20 point production is 20 point production no matter what the FG% or "points per shot."

As for this nonsense about "missed shots give the opposing team more shot opportunities" as it pertains to production, come on man. How about this? Shaq's lazy fatass not getting back in transition allowed for opposing centers who hustled down the court to get easy lay-ups and dunks, canceling some of the production Shaq had on offense. Is that a valid argument to knock down Shaq's production? Of course missed shots lead to shot opportunities for the other team. This is what that argument is like: in baseball, errors by fielders often lead to the other team run scoring opportunities, so that cancels out the effective pitch the pitcher threw at the batter. Well yeah but it's not the pitcher's fault. Kobe missing shots could lead to scoring opportunities by the other team, but it's the responsibility of the entire team to get back on defense. Kobe isn't the only player who would miss shots on the Lakers. You could say that about any Laker who missed shots. That's an issue for the team's transition defense, not a canceling point to Kobe's offensive production. Come on now.

You said "Shaq took dribble drives out of Kobe's arsenal." I showed evidence to the contrary, and now you're backtracking.

And Shaq helped Kobe's offensive game more than hurt it. That's my essential point.

You showed evidence that it doesn't completely prevent dribble drives. Shaq still changed the way Kobe had to get to the rim. Doesn't completely stop Kobe from getting to the rim. But it doesn't help either. I would agree that Shaq helped Kobe's offensive game. I would say Kobe helped Shaq's game too. Kobe's game helped Shaq's game more than hurt it as well. Again, a mutually beneficial relationship. Without Shaq, Kobe was still a 30 ppg scorer. It's not like taking Shaq off of the team and Kobe then became an average NBA player. Kobe proved he was just as good a scorer without Shaq. So Shaq "creating all those open shots for Kobe" is quite exaggerated. Did Shaq help? Of course and obviously. Was it mostly because of Shaq that Kobe scored 25+ ppg? Certainly not.

I said Duncan plays "roughly" the same amount of time in the low post as Shaq. I think 75% of his shots come from there. Anyhow, maybe
"roughly" wasn't the best word choice. However, that doesn't invalidate my point. Ask other Spurs fans about how Duncan in the low post helps Manu and Parker's dribble penetration. Duncan, like Shaq, is a master of sealing his man off near the basket, taking away any chance that defender might've had at blocking the shot. Shaq did this Robinson countless times in those days.

Still a problematic comparison when you consider the things I mentioned, Duncan's ability to draw his defender out of the paint area with his perimeter skills and Parker's (even Ginobili to a lesser extent) ability to score in open court transition.

True. Shaq was still the more important component, though.

That's not the same argument. I'd have no problem saying Shaq was more important or, as I've already acknowledged, more dominant. Being those things don't make the player the only "go-to guy." Go back to the early 80s Lakers with Magic and Kareem. By Magic's second season after he won Finals MVP, it was already his team or at least transitioning into it. He shared that "go-to guy" status with Kareem despite Kareem still being dominant. Go back to another example I've used in this thread, the 2008 Boston Celtics. KG was more "important" than Paul Pierce but Pierce was still the "go-to guy" on offense. You're trying to slightly change the issue here. Shaq being more dominant and more important doesn't mean he was the main go-to guy and couldn't share that responsibility with Kobe. That's what it actually was by 2000-01. And it was pretty evident.

Ask any opposing coach of that era who their primary focus was when they were playing the Lakers, and they'll tell you it was Shaq.

Except for Rick Adelman, Gregg Popovich, and Larry Brown...

You're neglecting "hockey assists." Passing out of double-teams from the low-post usually results in the pass that leads to the open shot. Derek Fisher pretty much lived off Shaq double-teams in some form.

Now we're going to go to "hockey assists?" You're going all over the place. Every little thing. I could argue that Shaq getting double teamed and him passing it out to the elbow to Derek Fisher with Kobe just standing in the corner and his defender refusing to leave Kobe to rotate out to Fisher gives Kobe a hockey assist too, right? You see, basketball is a team sport. And everything every teammate does can have a positive or negative effect for a player. Kobe slashing to the rim drawing two defenders to collapse into the paint could lead to an open shot without Kobe even touching the basketball. Kobe setting a pick could lead to an open shot. There are a bunch of little things we could argue back and forth about what Shaq did or Kobe did that led to scoring opportunities that aren't specifically scoring the basket or getting an assist. You choose to try to find every little thing Shaq did while discrediting what Kobe did. I haven't once said Shaq wasn't dominant or important or valuable to the success those Lakers teams had. I'm merely saying that Kobe had just as much to do with it.

You can't have it both ways. Either the offense ran through Shaq and he was the clear number 1 option, or he wasn't. Even if 55% of the offense ran through him while the other 45% ran through Kobe, it still means Shaq is the primary option. You just can't say, "Well, that's close enough that it's 'essentially' the same." It's not.

So now you're starting to relent? Now it's possible that it was 55/45 Shaq? How about 51/49? Would that still be clear? This started with you suggesting that Kobe's production was "nowhere near" Shaq's production. Now we're getting into "even if it was 55/45...

The offense did run through Shaq. Didn't say it didn't. The offense also ran through Kobe as the point facilitator in the triangle. And when you're talking about two dominating players taking roughly the same amount of shots and scoring roughly the same amount of points, you're talking about two fairly equal "go-to guys." You go to efficiency and hockey assist arguments when it's pretty clear that Kobe was just as much the go-to guy along with Shaq.

I stand by this. Shaq was the primary focus of the defense. Kobe was a heavy concern, no doubt, but defenses planned around stopping Shaq first, aside from the '04 Pistons.

And the 2001 Kings and the 2002 Spurs.

So you're saying aside from when he wasn't, he was...

Guards and SFs usually double out on the perimeter, so how is that supposed to lead to "easy layups" when the interior defender's position isn't compromised?

A player who is doubled off of out on the perimeter is taught to go straight to the rim when he's doubled. When a double team is out on the perimeter, the guy who is doubled off of goes straight to the rim. It's generally much more difficult to recover from the perimeter to the paint. That guy who slashed to the basket now creates a 2-on-1 in the paint area. A good team, with a perimeter player smart and skilled enough to handle a double team out on the perimeter will either get the ball in the paint or swing the ball to get the ball in the paint to take advantage of that 2-on-1 in the paint. The interior defender is compromised by that 2-on-1 scenario.

It's similar to what happens in a pick-and-roll scenario when the guy defending the pick hedges out too hard and too far on the ball and allows his man to slip and roll quickly towards the rim.

No, players doubling on the perimeter can recover quicker. The Lakers for instance. Kobe will get doubled on the wing, usually by Fisher's primary defender, leaving Fish open at the top of the key. If Kobe chooses to pass back to him so Fisher can take the open shot, the player previously defending Fisher only has a short distance to go, from the wing to the top of the key.

Not true. When a double team occurs out on the perimeter, the guy who is doubled off of is supposed to go to the rim. With a player like Fisher who is a small guard and a spot-up jump shooter, you're taught to drift away from the ball and the double team to make it a longer distance to recover and/or to force a defensive rotation. If Kobe is doubled out on the elbow by Fisher's defender, Fisher should either go straight to the rim, go baseline to the opposite side of the half court and allow two swing passes to lead to an open jumper for him, or create enough space that will force another defender to have to rotate on him. That's generally not a shorter distance to recover than a double team on the low post.

Jeez, if perimeter players put more pressure on the opposing defense, which is what you're suggesting, then head coaches have gotten it wrong all this time by building around low-post players.

Not what I suggested at all. How often do you see double teams out on the perimeter versus double teams at the low post? Even against great perimeter players like Kobe, LeBron, and Wade, you won't see doubles that often until maybe late in the game when teams are just trying to get the basketball out of their hands. But you'll see plenty of double teaming against a good low post scorer throughout a game. Double teams on the low post are generally coming from the elbow defender on the same side or from the high post defender. That is almost always a shorter distance to recover than from double teams out on the perimeter. And it doesn't compromise the interior defense nearly as much. When you double the low post, you'll make it very difficult for the low post player to pass it in the paint in traffic so it generally involves kick-out passes to the perimeter. More times than doubles out on the perimeter, it leads to open jumpers. Doubles out on the perimeter more so leads to lay-ups and dunks.

Anyhow, I think I've made all the points and counterpoints I can. I'll let you have the last word.

That said, I respect what you bring to the discussion.

Yeah, like I said, at this point it's just running around in circles. Guess we'll just have to disagree.

LakeShow

09-15-2010, 01:42 PM

damn good arguements here....

I think i'd go with Jams on this one.

I agree

Top 5 Lakers

Magic
Kobe
Kareem
West
Shaq

picc84

09-15-2010, 03:11 PM

Sometimes the offense ran through Shaq, sometimes it would go through Kobe. They'd alternate entire games. And thats something the two of them actually said. "We'd tell the other one, you run the show tonight", paraphrased.

LakeShow

09-15-2010, 03:33 PM

One things for sure and cannot be disputed. When the game was on the line, the Ball was ALWAYS in Kobe's hand. Mainly because Shaq couldn't make free-throws and teams would rather take their chances at just fouling Shaq. Kobe was the closer then and now.